3 ms·

> You're missing the point ... I really don't think I am, but perhaps it's an incompatibility in the way you're sending and I'm receiving. TSA screenings work

> You're missing the point ... I really don't think I am, but perhaps it's an incompatibility in the way you're sending and I'm receiving. TSA screenings work when not circumvented. When circumvented, you can bring a wide variety of weapons aboard a plane. Red lights on wearable computing devices work when not circumvented. When circumvented, your can record surreptitiously. They seem quite similar to me. > If I add a red light that works by default ... If I add a screening process that works by default ... > Most strangers may not know you can disable the light ... so they won't worry ... Like most people don't know that it's possible to get bombs through TSA checkpoints, so they don't worry. You're making the analogy more clear, not less.

kevingadd 14y ago
TSA screenings DON'T WORK, PERIOD, END SENTENCE. This is why they are called security theater, instead of ineffectual security. Or to give a more clear example, compare the TSA with customs. Customs does, in fact, do a very effective job of stopping certain kinds of contraband from crossing the border. They don't stop ALL OF IT, but they stop some. So when evaluating Customs, you have to decide whether they are simply inefficient, or not good enough at their jobs, or acceptably effective. In comparison, TSA literally does jack shit. Nothing. Which is why it's called security theater. Whether or not it's appropriate to call something security theater also depends on the stakes involved; TSA screenings are considered inappropriate and unacceptable because the cost incurred by the screenings is high (in time, dignity, etc) and the payoff is low - it's a net loss. Adding a red light costs literally nothing - cents on the dollar - and inconveniences no one. Even if... let's say 25% of google glass customers turn the LED off, the other 75% haven't so it's still working. You can very easily do a cost/benefit analysis here and it is hard to come up with a sane analysis where the LED isn't worth the cost. If you're going to throw terms around, you should at least make a basic attempt to understand what they actually mean.
- jamesaguilar 14y ago
  > TSA screenings DON'T WORK, PERIOD Let me make sure I understand. Are you saying that, 100% of the time, packing a gun in your carry-on won't get caught by a TSA screening? If not, what do you mean exactly by "don't work, period."
  - kevingadd 14y ago
    TSA screenings weren't introduced to prevent guns from being packed in suitcases; we had luggage screenings and customs beforehand. TSA screenings were introduced to stop terrorists from hijacking airplanes. EDIT: On the assumption that you will continue to display top-notch reading comprehension: "The TSA was created as a response to the September 11, 2001, attacks. Its first administrator, John Magaw, was nominated by President Bush on December 10, 2001, and confirmed by the Senate the following January. The agency's proponents, including Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta, argued that only a single federal agency would better protect air travel than the private companies who operated under contract to single airlines or groups of airlines that used a given terminal facility. The organization was charged with developing policies to protect U.S. transportation, especially in airport security and the prevention of aircraft hijacking." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_Security_Administration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_Security_Adminis... EDIT 2: I should also point out that we had sky marshals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Air_Marshal_Service http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Air_Marshal_Service
    - dragonwriter 14y ago
      Really, preboarding screenings were nationalized under the TSA to reduce the scope of potential future liability faced by airlines, who (through contractors) were previously responsible. It's not like the screenings didn't exist before 9/11, it's just different people were signing the screener's paychecks.
    - jamesaguilar 14y ago
      > To stop terrorists from hijacking airplanes . . . . . . by preventing them from carrying weapons onto those planes. Yes? So, going back to my original questions, if the screenings are security theater, according to your definition, they should be 100% ineffective at that job without any attempt at circumvention. Or have I read you incorrectly somewhere along the lines? All that stuff about the purpose of the TSA organization in your edit is useless, because I'm specifically talking about the screening procedures.
      - 14y ago

kevingadd 14y ago

TSA screenings DON'T WORK, PERIOD, END SENTENCE. This is why they are called security theater, instead of ineffectual security. Or to give a more clear example, compare the TSA with customs. Customs does, in fact, do a very effective job of stopping certain kinds of contraband from crossing the border. They don't stop ALL OF IT, but they stop some. So when evaluating Customs, you have to decide whether they are simply inefficient, or not good enough at their jobs, or acceptably effective. In comparison, TSA literally does jack shit. Nothing. Which is why it's called security theater. Whether or not it's appropriate to call something security theater also depends on the stakes involved; TSA screenings are considered inappropriate and unacceptable because the cost incurred by the screenings is high (in time, dignity, etc) and the payoff is low - it's a net loss. Adding a red light costs literally nothing - cents on the dollar - and inconveniences no one. Even if... let's say 25% of google glass customers turn the LED off, the other 75% haven't so it's still working. You can very easily do a cost/benefit analysis here and it is hard to come up with a sane analysis where the LED isn't worth the cost. If you're going to throw terms around, you should at least make a basic attempt to understand what they actually mean.

jamesaguilar 14y ago
> TSA screenings DON'T WORK, PERIOD Let me make sure I understand. Are you saying that, 100% of the time, packing a gun in your carry-on won't get caught by a TSA screening? If not, what do you mean exactly by "don't work, period."
- kevingadd 14y ago
  TSA screenings weren't introduced to prevent guns from being packed in suitcases; we had luggage screenings and customs beforehand. TSA screenings were introduced to stop terrorists from hijacking airplanes. EDIT: On the assumption that you will continue to display top-notch reading comprehension: "The TSA was created as a response to the September 11, 2001, attacks. Its first administrator, John Magaw, was nominated by President Bush on December 10, 2001, and confirmed by the Senate the following January. The agency's proponents, including Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta, argued that only a single federal agency would better protect air travel than the private companies who operated under contract to single airlines or groups of airlines that used a given terminal facility. The organization was charged with developing policies to protect U.S. transportation, especially in airport security and the prevention of aircraft hijacking." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_Security_Administration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_Security_Adminis... EDIT 2: I should also point out that we had sky marshals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Air_Marshal_Service http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Air_Marshal_Service
  - dragonwriter 14y ago
    Really, preboarding screenings were nationalized under the TSA to reduce the scope of potential future liability faced by airlines, who (through contractors) were previously responsible. It's not like the screenings didn't exist before 9/11, it's just different people were signing the screener's paychecks.
  - jamesaguilar 14y ago
    > To stop terrorists from hijacking airplanes . . . . . . by preventing them from carrying weapons onto those planes. Yes? So, going back to my original questions, if the screenings are security theater, according to your definition, they should be 100% ineffective at that job without any attempt at circumvention. Or have I read you incorrectly somewhere along the lines? All that stuff about the purpose of the TSA organization in your edit is useless, because I'm specifically talking about the screening procedures.
    - 14y ago